D&D 5E Failing saves is...ok?

[Tony Vargas]

It doesn't take skill to pass a save. It's luck. It's not like an attack or a single hit, which averages out over time. I've seen a condition (poisoned in one case, fear in another) functionally take characters out of a fight. He player can't "try harder" to succeed. They can't "get good" to avoid those effects.

Indomitable could let them try again vs the fear, for instance, but if they need a 17 or something, oh well. :shrug:

IMHO, saves need to calibrate better to level, if not PC level like in 1e, at least relative level, like non-AC defenses in 4e (which were still, IMHO, pretty marginal).

The multiple-save mechanics do have some potential, though. For instance, the first save could be harder, and subsequent ones get easier - or characters could get bettter or have resources that they can apply after the first save...

...something seems to be needed, though.

 

[Xeviat]

Indomitable could let them try again vs the fear, for instance, but if they need a 17 or something, oh well. :shrug:

IMHO, saves need to calibrate better to level, if not PC level like in 1e, at least relative level, like non-AC defenses in 4e (which were still, IMHO, pretty marginal).

The multiple-save mechanics do have some potential, though. For instance, the first save could be harder, and subsequent ones get easier - or characters could get bettter or have resources that they can apply after the first save...

...something seems to be needed, though.

Indomitable isn't a player skill. Maybe saving it for the right moment is.

In my games, I took away save proficiency and gave prof bonus to all saves, then made the saving throw DC formula 10+stat+prof. I haven't noticed the lack of "good saves" since those often overlapped with a character's high stats anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Gasik]

That's actually ingenious, Xeviat. Saves scale, your good saves are now the ones you "purchased" by having certain stats be high, and your bad saves are now the ones you should be bad at. You flattened the curve and also adjusted save DC's at the same time. So a Wizard can eventually have a save DC of 21 base (10+6+5). A character with a 20 Con at that same level has a save bonus of +11. Needs a 10. But if he has a Dex of 10, then it's +6 and he needs a 15. So it becomes more about targeting weak saves.

The only two issues I can see, and I'd like to know if you have a solution for, is classes who don't get to easily choose which save they target...and what you replaced bonus save proficiency with (such as the Monk and the Rogue).

Oh and with this system, do you find advantage, Bless, and bonuses like the Paladin's aura to be a bit stronger than normal? Now that 'impossible' saves are off the table, these resources are less vital, which is good- but are they possibly too effective?

 

[Shasarak]

** Except maybe in 3E or 4E, about which I know little.

Ah, attacked right in my Reflex!

 

[The Old Crow]

Indomitable isn't a player skill. Maybe saving it for the right moment is.

In my games, I took away save proficiency and gave prof bonus to all saves, then made the saving throw DC formula 10+stat+prof. I haven't noticed the lack of "good saves" since those often overlapped with a character's high stats anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do you deal with the monster side of it? Do you redo their saves from scratch, or do you have a simple method you can use on the fly?

 

[cmad1977]

If I've been playing a character for over a year IRL, struggling through an intricately designed campaign, I'm going to be emotionally invested in that character's growth and story. If my character fails a mere one or two saves on a random encounter with a banshee or mindflayer or whatever, without ever seeing the campaign through or saving the world... well, that's a pretty effing metal way to go. I'm going to fondly remember that character for a long time.

Everything working fine, nothing to see here.

Nothing more metal than having ones brain devoured!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jasper]

This is game where we roll dice to determine the outcome. Sometimes the die loves you and sometimes the die hates you. If you are unwilling to game when pc death is on the line, don't play the game.
snarky snarky snarky.
Gee I think some of you would demand a reroll in Vegas if you rolled snake eyes.
end of snark.

 

[Caliban]

Gee I think some of you would demand a reroll in Vegas if you rolled snake eyes.
end of snark.

Only if I'm playing the Gambler subclass. Once per short or long rest they get a reroll on gambling checks.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

In 6e there will be no failed rolls, just less successful ones.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is game where we roll dice to determine the outcome. Sometimes the die loves you and sometimes the die hates you. If you are unwilling to game when pc death is on the line, don't play the game.

There's little complaint in this thread about unlucky rolls. Most of the complaints are concerning those situations - increasingly common at high levels - where the die is irrelevant.